Power Platform & Dynamics 365 Cloud Solution Architect Assets
Service Offerings Toggle Dark/Light/Auto mode Toggle Dark/Light/Auto mode Toggle Dark/Light/Auto mode Back to homepage

04 How do you define reliability targets?

Reliability Assessment - Target Metrics

Question: How do you define reliability targets?

Reliability targets are derived through workshop exercises with business stakeholders. The targets are refined through monitoring and testing. With your internal stakeholders, set realistic expectations for workload reliability so that stakeholders can communicate those expectations to customers through contractual agreements.

Comments

Power Platform handles most of the infrastructure needed to run its services. That said it is a shared responsibility based on the workloads and strain applied to the platform. Also, as the platform provides extensibility into Azure, the responsibility can shift more towards organizations.

This question will primarily focus on the RE:04 Target Metrics recommendations.

To learn more and get started with defining target metrics, review the official FMA collection below.

References

Well-Architected Framework Target Metrics

Monitor and optimize your Dynamics 365 environments

Official Microsoft Well-Architected Framework Reliability Failure Mode Analysis Collection

YouTube: Power Platform Well-Architected Framework - Defining a Monitoring Strategy

Question Responses

[X] We have availability targets.

Reliability targets require metrics like service-level objectives (SLOs), service-level agreements (SLAs), and service-level indicators (SLIs).

Comments

Service Level Objective - A target that you set for your workload or application based on the quality of service that your customers expect to receive.

Service Level Indicator - Measurement of a particular aspect of a service’s performance

Service Level Agreement - Agreement between a service provider and a customer

These metrics should come from workshops performed with business and technical stakeholders and should be realistic in nature. SLOs are mandatory for each system and workload.

NOTE - If you do not have an SLO for each workload, do not check this box.

References

Power Platform Availability targets

Azure Availability targets

[X] We have recovery targets.

Recovery targets correspond to the recovery time objective (RTO), recovery point objective (RPO), mean time to recovery (MTTR), and mean time between failure (MTBF) metrics. In contrast to availability targets, recovery targets for these measurements don’t depend heavily on SLAs.

Comments

Recovery Time Objective - The maximum acceptable time that an application can be unavailable after an incident.

Recovery Point Objective - The maximum acceptable duration of data loss during an incident.

Mean Time to Recovery - The time taken to restore a component after a failure is detected.

These metrics rely heavily on your FMA and BC/DR strategy. Organizations will need to work with business stakeholders to discuss aspirations and review architecture.

NOTE - If you have not defined all three of these metrics, do not check this box.

References

Azure Recovery targets

Power Platform Recovery targets

Microsoft Service Trust

[X] We developed a health model based on workload availability and recovery metrics.

A health model aims to transform your system metrics into data that you can compare against your service-level objectives (SLOs).

Comments

The health model should be based on the availability and recovery targets defined above. With a health model, you are performing an operational maturity assessment. Key things to focus on in the model are: “How you detect and respond to issues”, “How you diagnose issues that have happened” and now to “Predict and more importantly prevent issues before they take place”.

Each mission critical workload needs to be analyzed with the health model. Below is an example of a readable health model

NOTE - If you have not analyzed and documented with a health model, do not check this box.

References

Power Platform Health Model

Building a Monitoring and Alerting strategy

Health modeling of mission-critical workloads in Azure

Monitoring the Power Platform

Application Insights Artifacts for Dataverse

Application Insights Artifacts for Power Platform

[X] We agree on definitions of healthy, degraded, and unhealthy states for the workload.

Agreeing on what constitutes a healthy or degraded operation is crucial for design discussions.

Comments

Below are recommended health states for the model including definitions.

Healthy - Operates optimally and meets quality expectations

Degraded - Exhibits less than healthy behavior, which indicates potential problems

Unhealthy - In a critical state and requires immediate attention

NOTE - If you have not defined health states do not check this box

References

Azure Recommended Health States

Power Platform Health States

[X] We implemented a process or technology to inform stakeholders of application health.

You have visualization or reporting in place that informs stakeholders about the overall state of the workload. Dashboards can also be reports by email, instant messaging, or wiki that notify business stakeholders when the health state changes.

Comments

Visualizations can come in many forms. Dashboards, Azure workbooks, reports, etc. are all viable options. Based on the stakeholder and responsible parties, consider the access needed to underlying data and any licenses needed to review.

The following example shows an Azure Data Explorer dashboard visualizing Dataverse telemetry.

NOTE - If you haven’t created a dashboard showcasing telemetry for Dataverse and Power Platform services, do not check this box.

References

Visualizing Application Health

Azure Dashboard

Power Automate Workbooks

Dataverse Dashboards

Dataverse Workbooks